Do people really think global warming is a hoax?

Question

I saw a bumper sticker that said it was a hoax. I didn't want to believe humanity could really be this stupid, so I shrugged it off as a joke. But tell me, are there really people who don't believe it to be true?

Answer 1

Examine the replies. Most say "Those who believe that it is a hoax are stupid because (fill in the blank)."

This is a propaganda tactic called "name-calling." (ref below) You simply discredit your opponent (say that he's stupid) so that you don't have to address any of his arguments (why would I listen to a stupid person, anyway?). If you don't want to listen to them, take comfort in the propagandist responses. If you want to find out if they are right or wrong, you will have to dig deeper.

As an engineer, I have observed many technical debates. In many cases where I KNOW that one side is wrong, I see that they rely heavily upon propaganda. Usually, this happens when they don't know the answer, but pretend that they do. Their actions are so consistent that I now interpret the use of propanganda as evidence of a known misrepresentation.

Answer 2

Most people who don't believe in it have absolutely no idea what there talking about, and they know it.

People refuse to believe in it because they can't bring themselves to accept that humanity can have such a drastic affect on the Earth. They would rather put our fate in some mysterious supreme being's hands.

Besides those who doubt it over religion, there's also those who doubt it because they don't want to believe the possible apocalyptic scenarios facing us. They don't want to accept the possibility of climate catastrophes, especially when the responsibility lies with them. They would rather call it all a hoax and scare tactics by environmentalists.

Perhaps this is a radical environmentalist's dream come true, humanity's self-inflicted undoing, a sort of environmental reckoning after thousands of year's of environmental slaughter. Whatever the motives though, the fact is anthropogenic global warming exists, is intensifying, and could very well be a non-fictional apocalypse for humanity.

Remember, denial is a powerful thing.

Answer 3

I am sure some do, just like I am sure some are so blinded by Global warming that they are no longer rational people.

You will always find extremists like the woman who had an abortion because "it is environmentally unacceptable to have children".

Personally I find that most people who do not credit Human impacted global climate change are the ones who understand that the climate is not stagnant. it changes and history and facts have shown countless examples of sudden and dramatic changes. most of which happened before industrialization. Like my self, I know climate change to be real, but knowing history I have to believe that odds are it is not predominately caused by human interaction and may be part of a larger cycle.

But yes there are people who think it is a hoax.

Answer 4

Dude. Al Gore may need to quit dumping that magic grass in his cereal, but if you ever need proof in global warming, watch the damn Inconvenient Truth.

There really are people who believe that crap. They have usually read very scientific totally unbiased reports from scientists who received their funding from the oil companies. Then they feel all educated and sh.it.

...........Sorry hon. Did that amount of sarcasm give you a stroke? ((hugs))

Answer 5

What people do not believe is that atmospheric carbon dioxide will bring catastrophic warming. Some of these are scientists and climatologists. The most respected and highly cited climatologist in the field is Roger Pielke. His conclusions are here:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/09/02/summary-conclusions-of-climate-science/

Note to Frank - Where did you get your number of 16 ppm? You did not provide a link and I do not think it is correct. The pre-industrial level of atmospheric CO2 is 270 ppm by volume. The measure of climate sensitivity is a estimate (prediction) of what global temperature will be when CO2 is doubled (540 ppm). The current level of total atmospheric CO2 is said to be 385 ppm by volume and 582 ppm by mass.

The difference between 385 and 270 is 115, not 16. Of course some fluctuation in CO2 is natural. Perhaps a case could be made that some of the increase is natural, but I do not know any reliable method to do so. The attempt to do so based on isotopes failed because it was learned that nature produces both isotopes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Answer 6

Yes, I believe it is a hoax. In 10 years we are experiencing a cooling trend not a warming trend.
I agree with "Dr. Jello".

Answer 7

I heard, over the Thanksgiving dinner, that 52% of scientists say global warming does NOT exist and that it is merely a scam to get us to live in greater fear and buy more crap we don't need.

Answer 8

Yes, some people do.

Very few people think that the planet is not warming at this point. A larger percentage think that humans are not responsible, but only around 10% of the world population thinks this way (closer to 20% in the USA).

Answer 9

The "hoax" is that it's man-made. The Earth may quite possibly be warming up. Not 30 years ago, according to the "mainstream media" and "noted scientists", we were on our way to another ICE AGE! Are these people more accurate today than they were then? Or are they pushing an agenda? I heard today that the predictions made last year for this year's hurricane season were so much BS. And these people are the ones predicting global climate change?

Anybody who believes climate change is man-made must also be denying the geological evidence that the earth's climate is in constant fluctuation between warming periods and cooling periods. Therefore we have ice-ages with warmer periods in between them. It's easy to predict something happening when it's a natural cycle of the world that we have no control over. All we can do is adapt and make preparations for what we can.

How can anyone say that this (our current temperature range) is the optimum temperature for our earth? Has anyone been alive during the previous climate changes to know what is best? And, seeing that the earth DOES go through cycles without end, just WHAT can be considered "optimum?"

Science has only been keeping accurate temperature records for about 200 years. And this began only in certain locations like population centers, not globally like it is with the use of weather satellites. Which satellites, by the way, have failed to confirm one iota of temperature increase as stated by the "global warming chicken-littles" of the world. How can a mere 200 years of not-always accurate record keeping begin to make accurate predictions of cycles that last 10's of thousands of years or more?

Computer models? HAR!!! The computer programs in use today cannot even factor in the water-vapor content of the atmosphere, which - according to any climatologist worth his salt - is one of the premiere "greehouse" gases in existence in our atmosphere. Even more that CO2. And CO2 has been shown to increase AFTER any rise in temperature has taken effect - not a CAUSE at all.

There used to be forests in North Africa instead of the Sahara. There have been remains of tropical plants discovered in the Antarctic. From one extreme to the other, I doubt that anyone can say what is best, unless they pull an opinion out of their @$$. Or have a political agenda like Al Gore and his "disciples."

Answer 10

No hoax, we are getting higher temps every year in SA. We run a average of 37-40 c now and it is not even summer yet. Our hottest month is late December early January.